Define this word for me, please

[lost-and-found]

What is syntax?

I have to write my book report by thursday (notice that I did not wait 'til the last minute to ask this question ), it is more of a analytical style of a report.

One of the questions is regarding the Author's syntax. What is meant by that?

I read "Roots" by Alex Haley as the report book (a very good book). Would anyone also help me find the tree major themes and symbols?

Any help welcome (especially the syntax help).

[vass0922]

Never read the book, but saw the mini-series
Very good story though!

Sorry was never good at english to help you with the symbols etc.

can you give us the exact question?
It depends if the question is asking literally how the author uses syntax (how they write the sentence, some authors are very good at styling a sentence to make their point better) or if maybe the person writing the question wanted something different?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: syn·tax
Pronunciation: 'sin-"taks
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French syntaxe, from Late Latin syntaxis, from Greek, from syntassein to arrange together, from syn- + tassein to arrange
Date: 1574
1 a : the way in which linguistic elements (as words) are put together to form constituents (as phrases or clauses) b : the part of grammar dealing with this
2 : a connected or orderly system : harmonious arrangement of parts or elements
3 : syntactics especially as dealing with the formal properties of languages or calculi

Re: Would anyone also help me find the tree major themes and symbols?

Do you mean "three"? Anyway.. I never read that book so I can't help you with that one.

Good luck on the book report. Good for you not waiting til the last minute

[jkrohn]

As far as I know it refers to the grammatical structure of sentences. I could be off base here as english is not my subject.

Jkrohn

[lost-and-found]

here is the question " Discuss techniques used by the author such as multiple, complex or simple plot; diction and syntax...."

[vass0922]

*feels something fly over my head*

wha... what was that??

hmmm maybe it was that question


I feel for ya! I've been there, as I'm sure many of the others around these parts

[Tomteriffic]

Syntax refers to the way a phrase or sentence is put together and how it is used to communicate a thought, idea, etc. for instance:

Me: "That's a nice computer you have there."
Yoda: "A powerful fiction-twister have you I think?"
DeeJay Warm'n'fuzzy Gangsta: "Homey, you be holdin' a BAAD box!"

Get the drift? Dialect and diction come in to play as well, but that's the general idea.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Wait til they ask you the difference between a denotative and connotative definition ? You got one kind from TomTerrific so I'll give you the other, I think.

Languages are devided into two general types relating to what determines "parts of speech" --subject, object etc.

Languages like Latin, Greek (Ancient and modern) use
word endings to tell these apart. They are called analytic for that reason because you "break down" the word to determine its part of speech. These changes in ending attched to root are called "declensions" and are the bane of memorizing in these languages. However, the great advantage is that WORD ORDER is far less important in understanding the language.

Languages like English, Spanish, etc. are called synthetic because the word order, not the word ending determine who is throwing the ball to whom and by what means.This eliminates the need for changes in word ending (except gender) and imposes , instesd, stringent rules regarding word order in relaying meaning.

Think of the difference between "fat pig" and "pig fat".

The example T.T. gave of Yoda was an excellent one because Yoda altered the conventional syntax ( rules of word order) , but nevertheless, retained the essential meaning.

However, Yoda was somewhat difficult to understand to the conventional ear, his changes were minor, yet still forced you to do some work to understand him. This is because English has highly structured rules of syntex which charecterizes it as a synthetic language --or "put together" in word and clause order for meaning to be conveyed.

In Greek --or any analytic language--such changes in word order would be inconsequential because of the use of changes in word endings (declensions) convey the parts of speech, hence meaning.

Nevertheless, many English writers "play" with the rules for "rhetorical" reasons--to add or subtract emphasis, to jolt, to set mood or as the writer deems useful along with diction--choice of words--and "voice" (active or passive), "person" (first or third) and subtleties of "rhythm".

Of course not every writer can "play' with the rules with impunity.

And one of the things I LEARNED IN MANY YEARS OF SCHOOL IS THAT TEACHERS BELIEVE THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS ARE THE ONE AND ONLY, TRUE, REVEALED, DEFINITION--SO YOU'D BETTER GET A BETTER "TAKE" AT WHERE S/HE IS "HEADING" [Sorry, caps lock but it seems to fit so I didn't re-write.]

SYNTACTUALD G

[Tomteriffic]

DEDECLENSIONALD G is right. In classical Latin, for instance, the verb, with it's ending typically shows up at the end of a sentence, but built into that one word verb are the person, number and tense.

It could be that the question, in this case, given that we're dealing with "Roots" is a look at Haley's perception of the use of the language as one goes back through the generations?

[MegalosSkylaki]

great pitcher for the New York Mets baseball team was nick-named "Tom Terriffic".

Tom Seaver held out for mega-contract and got what he asked for--$350,000 per annum. Then one or two years later "free agency" hit and $350,000 was chump-change for a pitcher of his quality. So he srarted whining --Big tme--and the vindictive Mets who were dead-on right in my book in refusing to renogotiate--were dead-on wrong and traded him. Should have kept him, the whines, and the WINS.

Anyway, back to thread:Never read ROOTS.
Personally I doubt that's what Teacher has in mind --more likely the "writing style" of Alex Haley.

However, wasn't joking about getting a "take" on the Teacher's "head" 'cause what you or I or rest of humanity thinks ain't as important as what the Teacher thinks he means by his use of syntax. Ain't dat de troot !

deD GSTER